3/20/2015
2015/3/17
A Comparative Study of the PISA’s
Impact on Education Policies:
With Viewpoint of Global Governance
Joint research team on Comparative analysis on Impact
of Global Governance on Education
<This presentation is partially revised version of the presentation presented
at World Congress of Comparative Education Society (2013/6/20) >
1
1. Background of the study
PISA (Programme for International Student Assessment)
conducted by OECD
assessing 15-year-olds' competencies in the key subjects:
reading, mathematics and science
three yearly cycles: 2000, 2003, 2006, 2009, 2012
65 countries/areas participated in PISA 2009
• analyzes the impact of PISA on education
policies in 14 participating countries and
describes the features of PISA’s impact from
the perspective of global governance
2
2. Preceding study about PISA’s impact
• Phillips (2004)
– the process of “cross national attraction”
• Martens (2007)
– as a tool of “governance by comparison”
• Grek (2009)
– “governing by numbers”
• Martens, et al. (2010)
– “soft” governance
3
1
3/20/2015
3. Global Governance
• Discussed often as a theory of international
relations and politics
– governance functioning globally
– constructive approach stressing “norm”
• Norm and PISA
– “a standard of appropriate behavior for actors with
a given identity”(Finnemore & Sikkink 1998, p.891)
– PISA≠international law or agreement
4
4. Methodology of the study
• Case studies of each country
– Australia, Belgium, Canada, China (Shanghai),
Finland, France, Germany, Japan, Netherland,
Singapore, UK, and US (Denmark and Poland)
– literature review, document analysis (education
law, national curriculum, etc.) and interviewing
with related person in each country
• Comparative analysis
– classification of countries based on the aspects of
PISA’s impact
5
5. Result of comparative analysis
Clear impact on content
France, Japan
Little
impact
on
system
Denmark, Germany
Australia, Canada,
China (Shanghai),
Finland, Netherland,
Belgium
Poland, Singapore,
UK, US
Little impact on content
Clear
impact
on
system
6
2
3/20/2015
6. Features of PISA’s Impact
• Educational system
– norm=ranking and OECD average scores
– impetus for system change
– justification of negative aspects of ongoing system
• Educational content
– norm=competencies assessed by PISA
– curricularization of what is assessed by PISA
– application of PISA’s competencies to education
goal, standards and curriculum
7
7. Discussion
• Educational contents
– reflection of history, culture and custom in each
country
– compulsory education as national education
→Diversity of educational contents
“Excessive” global governance
– standardization of educational contents
– crisis of diversity in educational contents
8
8. Conclusion
• PISA’s impact on education policy
– educational system and educational contents
– PISA as a norm of global governance
• Impact on educational contents
– PISA’s penetration into educational “interna” of
each nation-state
How should we see this emergence of
global governance?
9
3
3/20/2015
Reference
•
•
•
•
•
Finnemore, M. and Sikkink, K. (1998). International Norm Dynamics and
Political Change. International Organization, 52, No.4, pp.887-917.
Grek、S. (2009). Governing by numbers: the PISA ‘effect’ in Europe. Journal
of Education Policy, 24, No.1, pp.23-37.
Martens, K. (2007). How to Become an Influence Actor – The ‘Comparative
Turn’ in OECD Education Policy. In Martens, K., Rusconi, A. and Leuze, K.
(eds.), New Arenas of Education Governance: The Impact of International
Organizations and Markets on Educational Policy Making, New York:
Palgrave Macmillan, pp.40-56.
Martens, K., Nagel, A. Windzio, M., and Weymann, A. (eds.) (2010).
Transformation of Education Policy, Pagrave Macmillan.
Phillips, D. (2004). Toward a Theory of policy Attraction in Education. In
Steiner-Khamsi, Gita (ed.), The Global Politics of Educational Borrowing
and Lending, Teachers College Press.
10
Member of this study
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Chief: Akira Ninomiya (Hijiyama University, Japan)
Australia: Hisaharu Okuda (Hiroshima University, Japan)
Belgium: Yumiko Kanai (Hiroshima University, Japan)
Canada: Tomoko Shimomura (Mie University, Japan)
China: Jin Long-zhe (Kanagawa Prefectural University of Health, Japan),
Denmark and OECD: Hitoshi Sato (Fukuoka University, Japan)
Finland: Aya Watanabe (Kumamoto University, Japan)
France: Noritomo Tasaki (Kyushu Women University, Japan)
German: Ayumi Ono
Netherland: Lyckle Griek (NHL University, Netherland)
Japan: Masashi Urabe (Hiroshima City University, Japan)
Singapore: Kenichi Ishida (Nagasaki Jyunshin Women University, Japan)
UK: Yasushi Fujii (Matsuyama University, Japan)
US: Tsukasa Sasaki (Yamaguchi Univeristy, Japan)
11
Thank you for you attention.
This work was supported by JSPS KAKENHI Grant Number
24330238 and 21330191.
12
4